Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses case-insensitive matching, cell-level containment, row-level output, and a 50-row cap. It does not mention ordering, pagination, or what happens when more than 50 rows match, but the core behavior is clearly communicated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the resource and search behavior. Every clause adds meaningful information: row output, cell matching, case-insensitivity, and the 50-row ceiling.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter search tool, the description covers the essential matching semantics, but gaps remain: no result format is described, no ordering or pagination behavior, and no guidance about when to prefer sibling tools. The absence of an output schema and annotations makes these omissions more noticeable.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema describes the query parameter as 'text to look for in any cell', and the description reinforces this with case-insensitive matching. However, the limit parameter has no schema description and the description only says 'up to 50', without explicitly tying this to the limit parameter or explaining its role.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action and resource: returning rows of the Offdayly dataset that match a query in any cell. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like dataset_row, dataset_stats, or dataset_top, since it is the only full-text row search tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the primary use case: find rows containing a given text. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or direct the agent to alternatives, such as dataset_row for a known row identifier or dataset_stats for aggregate insights.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.